Further to Friday’s post on The Planets series, here’s another short extract, taken from the episode Atmosphere. In it, we follow Joe Kittinger’s 1960 balloon ride to an altitude of 103,000 feet (20 miles / 32 km), where, technically, he became the first man in space. Thanks to automated cameras, we also follow Kittinger’s unorthodox - and perilous - return to Earth. Extraordinary.
Parts one through six of The Planets can be viewed online here.
Wow! This gives me an idea for a possible business. Extreme parachuting from spaaaaace!!!!
Posted by: Brendan | October 01, 2007 at 19:05
You may want to provide customers with mittens and a scarf. And sunblock.
Posted by: David | October 01, 2007 at 19:15
Amazing, simply amazing.
Posted by: Jim - PRS | October 02, 2007 at 08:00
Yes, it is. It’s one of those events where, once you’ve actually seen it, it seems odd you hadn’t heard of it before. It also raises the issue of what altitude qualifies as space.
Posted by: David | October 02, 2007 at 08:13
"what altitude qualifies as space."
Because the density of atmosphere is a gradient, there is no actual boundary. As Joe says in the video, 63,000 feet would see your blood boil away due to lack of pressure. But I suspect that 62,000 feet would be none too healthy either.
Posted by: The Thin Man | October 02, 2007 at 09:03
Here's a space related quote of the day:
"To be sure, Saint-Simon was a flamboyant character, and the kind of megalomaniac aristocrat — idealist, bad writer, idiot and eccentric — with which early 19th-century socialism was amply stocked."
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/31251
Posted by: AntiCitizenOne | October 02, 2007 at 11:17
AC1,
I rather like this, from the same article:
“[Kepler’s] idea was mocked by the French astronomer Ismael Boulliau, who in 1645 said that such a force would have to radiate in all directions like light and so would weaken with the square of the distance. Boulliau simply found it impossible to believe God would act this way…”
Boulliau subsequently changed his mind, but I’m tickled by how the inverse-square law caused outrage, while presuming to know the preferences of a hypothetical deity did not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismael_Bullialdus
Posted by: David | October 02, 2007 at 11:36
Not sure where you dig all this stuff up David, but this one is every bit as cool as all the rest.
Posted by: Brad in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada | October 06, 2007 at 20:11
David, It seems a common trait with physicists.
After all "God does not play dice..."
Posted by: AntiCitizenOne | October 06, 2007 at 21:05
AC1,
“It seems a common trait with physicists.”
Einstein was, I think, using the term very loosely – i.e. to mean ‘nature’ or something - and wasn’t referring to a personal deity as such; as opposed to Boulliau, who was ordained as a Catholic priest. But, yes, as a general rule I think it’s wise not to claim to know the detailed preferences of deities that may or may not exist.
Brad,
Happy to oblige. Please feel free to roam the archives. I’m told using the PayPal button causes a pleasurable release of endorphins.
Posted by: David | October 06, 2007 at 23:11